So I'm in the market for a new computer. Should I avoid 64 bit? Would I run into problems if I share data between my 34 bit laptop and my 64 bit computer?

Would it cause problems with developing the codebase?

Can I use andLinux with a 64 bit computer?

Some of these questions are probably easily explained with google, but the bigger question of development and general 64 bit enhanced/drawbacks in that realm probably aren't. :smile:

The only thing here that really isn't avoidable, is andLinux. AndLinux only works on 32 bit OS's. The chances of it being ported to 64bit are pretty low, as the problem lies with colinux, not andlinux itself.

The only real issue with codebase development between the two architects will be that size_t changes. This means anything printing out size_t as '%d' will need to be changed. You can avoid it by using '%zd' which will work regardless of your architect.

No. Having a 64-bit processor doesn't mean that you have to run a 64-bit OS. My box with a 64-bit processor dual-boots 64-bit Linux and 32-bit Windows. Many people have 64-bit processors without even knowing (or caring).

Quote

Would I run into problems if I share data between my 34 bit laptop and my 64 bit computer?

No, except in some cases when you're compiling a binary on one computer and trying to run it on the other (and sometimes this is just fine). If by 'data' you mean things like text files, office documents, pictures, etc., then there is no problem whatsoever (bytes are bytes, after all).

Quote

Some of these questions are probably easily explained with google, but the bigger question of development and general 64 bit enhanced/drawbacks in that realm probably aren't. :smile:

You shouldn't avoid 64bit, because you probably really can't at this point. You can share data, but certain programs are going to need the 64Bit version for installing. But only if you have a 64-bit OS.

It's not going to cause any issues with developing your codebase. My home PC is 32-bit (Until I finish building my new one), and my Server is 64-Bit, and there's really no difference except the speed, and the limits on things like integers and what not.

You're going to have to look on the andLinux site and see if it's 64-bit enabled or not.

So I'm in the market for a new computer. Should I avoid 64 bit? Would I run into problems if I share data between my 34 bit laptop and my 64 bit computer?

Absolutely. I know of no devices that can interface with 34-bit systems. I'm amazed you have one working as is.

Seriously, though….there won't be any major problems. Feel free to get a system with a 64-bit processor - just try to make sure you get a 64-bit version of whatever OS you want to use. My MUD runs on a server with a 64-bit processor/OS - the only issues I had were with some libraries when I first transitioned over. It just takes a little googling to get sorted out.

Feel free to get a system with a 64-bit processor - just try to make sure you get a 64-bit version of whatever OS you want to use.

Actually I would say the opposite: only get a 64-bit OS if you know you want one, because you will need to get 64-bit compiled versions of your software. On Linux this is almost always fine, but it causes trouble on Windows.

You do not need 64-bit compiled software even on 64-bit Windows. Is it better/more native? Yes. A necessity? Not at all. I think my "Program Files (x86)" folder has more items than my "Program Files" one does.

Feel free to get a system with a 64-bit processor - just try to make sure you get a 64-bit version of whatever OS you want to use.

Actually I would say the opposite: only get a 64-bit OS if you know you want one, because you will need to get 64-bit compiled versions of your software. On Linux this is almost always fine, but it causes trouble on Windows.

You do not need a 64-bit OS on a 64-bit processor.

I didn't say you "need" one. I just said "try" to get one. And if you get 64-bit Windows 7, as opposed to 64-bit Windows XP or Windows Vista - there really aren't any troubles. Even with XP, I never had any major troubles. And you already stated that there aren't any issues with Linux. It just depends on what your reasons for having the 64-bit system are to begin with, I guess.

Kline said:

I think my "Program Files (x86)" folder has more items than my "Program Files" one does.

The only reason I can think of switching to a 64bit arch, as far as functionality goes, is if you want more then 3gb of ram. If you plan on staying under 3gb of ram, I'd try to get some kind of sale on the 32bit. If there's no price difference, I'd just go for the 64bit in case you want to jam-pack your rig full of RAM.

Unless the 32-bit system is cheaper, just get 64-bit so you don't have to worry about it later.

If "andLinux" doesn't work, use a real linux distro. In a VM if you don't want to dual-boot. I wouldn't cripple yourself with either 32-bit hardware OR a 32-bit OS when there are plenty of solutions out there that work properly.

No, actually, I didn't; please read more carefully. I said that it was almost always fine; that's very different from saying that there aren't any issues. In fact there are a few issues that are pretty big. For example, for the longest time Adobe had a 32-bit Flash version out but the 64-bit version was shaky at best. Now, because on Linux you can compile everything (or have your distribution packagers do it for you) you tend to not have trouble with the open-source programs, but proprietary binaries are another story.

Actually I would say the opposite: only get a 64-bit OS if you know you want one, because you will need to get 64-bit compiled versions of your software. On Linux this is almost always fine, but it causes trouble on Windows.

I would say without the clarification of your above post that your statement is invalid. There is no "need" for 64-bit software just because you use a 64-bit OS. (Which was the meaning I took from your original post.)

I'm going to throw my hat in the 64-bit ring, at least if you want your machine to last any significant period of time. 32-bit will, sooner or later, go the way of DOS, and you'll save yourself some trouble down the road if you hop on the bandwagon now. Dual booting and/or VMing seems like a pretty good contingency plan to get around the initial complications, too.

On that front… if you have the money, i7's are pretty nice. However, if you don't, AMD's Phenom II's are also pretty nice. I bought an X3-720BE, rated at 2.8GHz and overclocked on the stock cooler to 3.2GHz, and am pretty happy with it.